Armed for Peace: National Attitudes and Force Protection posture in Bosnia, 1995–2001

Abstract

This study offers several questions to guide an investigation into divergent force protection polices evident among multinational forces in Bosnia. The attempt to answer the question ’Why such angst over force protection posture?’ revealed a connection to mission interpretation and terrorist attacks upon military forces that occurred prior to the IFOR mission commencing. From the beginning, NATO and non-NATO force contributors viewed the Balkans mission as peacekeeping, since the Dayton Accords with its strong ground force and US commitment made a lasting peace viable. Secretary of Defense Perry and NATO Commander in Chief General Joulwan saw things differently, with Perry defining the mission as mid-intensity conflict and Joulwan making force protection a mission-essential task. Under IFOR, a rift existed among coalition partners concerning how to approach the mission, a philosophical gap that led to variances in force protection levels. Such differences continued forward well into SFOR. Where numerous national forces lowered their protective posture as conditions warranted, US forces continued to operate as they had from mission inception.